If not, what is the correct defense?
care to spell that out, like at least one time?
I’ll give you a less assholish answer. It stands for Deny Attack Reverse Victim and Offender. It’s basically an unnecessarily complicated way of saying gaslighting
Be the change u want to c
What a twatish response to someone who just wants to know what the acronym means. Good luck getting an answer with that attitude towards your commenters.
I don’t think it’s really possible for that to apply. In the original situation, it would be that you were the true victim, and they’re turning it around so they’re the victim. But if you were to flip that on them, it’s not DARVO - it’s simply continuing to push the original set up, where they’re the perpetrator. And of course you would deny their accusations and attacks, because by definition they’re invalid.
The correct defence against DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) varies from case to case, but it’s certainly not to DARVO back.
You won’t convince the DARVO-er that they’re in the wrong. They’re at the very least disingenuous, if not worse (irrational, assumptive, etc.). You’re simply better avoiding them and confrontation as much as you can.
And, for onlookers, DARVO-ing back means you and the abuser will look like two peas in a pod. Depending on the situation the onlookers might matter more or less, but it’s typically not a good idea to give them reasons to not side with you.
I think that in general documenting the abuse as well as you can should be a sound strategy. Not just to convince onlookers, but yourself; gaslighting is part of the DARVO core strategy.
Just my two cents.
